The Official Fallout Group

Whether you feel like the original Fallout titles were better than 3, or never played the originals and are just wondering how Bethesda's amazing reinvention stacks up to its isometric predecessors, this is where you can meet up with other wastelanders and

Wow, that was a long conversation. My opinion on the whole Fallout 3 and New Vegas plot and themes is that your talking about two completely different approaches to storytelling and the messages that they try to communicate. Fallout 3 communicates the message that in a world of death and evil, good can still reign. They pushed it by almost forcing you to make the "good" decision at the end of the game.

New Vegas is completely different, as it broaches the subject of revenge and greed. How far are you willing to go to get your revenge and make a name for yourself? This also points to the dirtiest of the Wasteland, but it hits that with a multi-tiered war, meaning that your standing with the big players in the Wasteland influence your choices. This is much more non-linear than Fallout 3, and the decisions in New Vegas reflect this because you have to decide to act based on if it's going to screw you over in the end, not as much on morality.

I think that both games hit different marks in very different ways but still communicate the message. Fallout 3: There's good in a world of evil. New Vegas: How far are you willing to go for vengeance and glory? Follow or lead? I think that both games hit those marks.

Though what you say is definitely true warlord, I feel it is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too narrow in scope. This is Fallout we are talking about, and beyond that 2 Bethesda-style Fallout games. You are only focusing on the main plot: How many Bethesda games have you played and felt you got the full story, or for that matter the "main" story, only through the main plot? You hit the nail on the head with both of the assessments of the main plots IMO, but you ignore probably 90% of both games. Both have far more broad and reaching themes and stories littered throughout the world, especially in areas like the Vaults, or Oasis, or the Brotherhood Bunker in New Vegas, or simply in a shack you find in the middle of the wasteland. The story in these sorts of games aren't the main source of conveyance of their story or message: it is the world they create and that the player must explore and judge for themselves.

I agree with that, too. That's one reason I like Fallout 3 more. While New Vegas hit the nail in its main story, to me, that's the only story I got. I explored every single area of the Mojave and most of the Capital Wasteland, and I felt that Fallout 3 had much more to offer in terms of extra stories and subjects.

I love Agatha's story, for example, because it connects you with a vault that was originally meant to be paradise for musicians. You get connected with a simple woman's desires to keep music from the old world alive while connecting with her own ancestry. That was a touching (as well as horrifiying, in terms of the vault) story and one of my favorite ones in Fallout 3. I didn't see as much of that in New Vegas at all.

What you say makes sense, and it's one of the reasons why I like Fallout 3 more.

Though what you say is definitely true warlord, I feel it is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too narrow in scope. This is Fallout we are talking about, and beyond that 2 Bethesda-style Fallout games. You are only focusing on the main plot: How many Bethesda games have you played and felt you got the full story, or for that matter the "main" story, only through the main plot? You hit the nail on the head with both of the assessments of the main plots IMO, but you ignore probably 90% of both games. Both have far more broad and reaching themes and stories littered throughout the world, especially in areas like the Vaults, or Oasis, or the Brotherhood Bunker in New Vegas, or simply in a shack you find in the middle of the wasteland. The story in these sorts of games aren't the main source of conveyance of their story or message: it is the world they create and that the player must explore and judge for themselves.

I don't know if you're talking to me or Warlord, but regardless, I'm taking the side locations into account as well. And even then, I feel New Vegas did a better job. Both games had some small, empty locations (a shack or a power station) and some larger, very interesting locations (like the vaults in both games). And I'll give you that there wasn't anything in New Vegas like the Dunwich Building in Fallout 3 (at least nothing that wasn't a vault or a town), but that wasn't necessarily a bad thing (I guess the Dunwich Building never did it for me). But I still found the interesting areas in New Vegas to be more interesting, and certainly that the towns were better crafted (as was the main story overall). I guess what I'm getting at is that in the side locations, the ones that were more central to the Fallout atmosphere or storyline overall (the vaults and towns) were done better in New Vegas than Fallout 3, but Fallout 3 had more of those standalone locations that really served no purpose beyond their own story. And I guess some people really enjoy the latter, but I don't put a lot of emphasis into it; exploration is nice, but it's not my top priority. I found the side quests in New Vegas to be better as well before you ask, and while "none" is my answer to your Bethesda question, that's true of all RPGs or RPG-like games, and Bethesda isn't my ideal developer in that regard

I completely disagree with fallout 3 having more meaningless locations than New Vegas. I honestly do not know how you can make that argument, as in my experience there were far, far, far, faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more empty shacks and meaningless locations on the map in New Vegas than 3. Really, I only felt New Vegas hit the high notes in the Vaults, in which most were very well done (especially 11). Otherwise, nearly everything fell flat and missed the Fallout feel (that of a post-apocalyptic world) and just felt more like a 3rd world country stuck in the middle of a war. Fallout 3, on the other hand, constantly reminded you that the old world was no more, and really felt like a post-apocalyptic universe, and nearly every location on the map had a story to tell. Rather it be large locales like Oasis, Little Lamplight, Bigtown, The Lincoln Memorial, or the smaller ones like the Mama Dolce Factory, The Sniper's Shack, Minefield, etc., it was hard to find a locale in Fallout 3 that did not in some way relate to some form of story, rather it be a small incident or part of a larger arc.

I felt that New Vegas was not as truly open world, because when you start the game you cannot go straight to New Vegas. It starts off sending you in the wrong direction, and it is almost impossible to make it past the Deathclaws in Quarry Junction before leveling up some. The game all but forces you to go through Primm, while in Fallout 3 you can go straight toward Rivet city if you want, you are not going to if you don't already know the game, but you can, and that made the experience with Fallout 3 more enjoyable for me, past the first play through. New Vegas, after the first play through, was the same quests for each of the three different factions. They made the game not truly open world, and not truly a different impact on the world when you change factions.

Also something that New Vegas dropped the ball on was the looting. Let's take two locations, one from each game, the Deathclaw Sanctuary from Fallout 3, and Dead Wind Caverns from New Vegas. Both are pretty much counterparts from the different games. When i clear Deathclaw Sanctuary there is plenty to get from dead bodies, and random crates. Also you get a bobble head, and two unique weapons, the Vengance, and Jack the ripper. I fealt that with all locations it was like this and Fallout 3 was a more enriching experience.

I felt that New Vegas was not as truly open world, because when you start the game you cannot go straight to New Vegas. It starts off sending you in the wrong direction, and it is almost impossible to make it past the Deathclaws in Quarry Junction before leveling up some. The game all but forces you to go through Primm, while in Fallout 3 you can go straight toward Rivet city if you want, you are not going to if you don't already know the game, but you can, and that made the experience with Fallout 3 more enjoyable for me, past the first play through. New Vegas, after the first play through, was the same quests for each of the three different factions. They made the game not truly open world, and not truly a different impact on the world when you change factions.

Also something that New Vegas dropped the ball on was the looting. Let's take two locations, one from each game, the Deathclaw Sanctuary from Fallout 3, and Dead Wind Caverns from New Vegas. Both are pretty much counterparts from the different games. When i clear Deathclaw Sanctuary there is plenty to get from dead bodies, and random crates. Also you get a bobble head, and two unique weapons, the Vengance, and Jack the ripper. I fealt that with all locations it was like this and Fallout 3 was a more enriching experience.

You can entirely go straight to New Vegas from the beginning; you don't have to pass by Quarry Junction at all. And even if you have to level up (the same way you have to level up to get through the super mutants en route to River City), so what? You're going out of "order" so you should obviously have to contend with higher level enemies. You could go straight to San Francisco at the beginning of Fallout 2, but that meant having to wade through random encounters with Enclave troopers who could kill you in one shot because they were a much higher level than you and had much better gear. Also, the quests for the different factions are different, or at least play out in very different ways. All the quests in Fallout 3 are the same and just have a good/evil path on repeated playthroughs, neither of which amounts to anything meaningful or adds to the ending like in New Vegas. So I really don't see your point

As for your point about locations, Dead Wind Cavern contains a unique grenade machine gun called Mercy and a bunch of loot as well. It doesn't have a bobblehead because New Vegas didn't have bobbleheads, and thay was because New Vegas was actually a balanced RPG where as Fallout 3 allowed you to make a demigod character with perfect stats very easily. So again, I don't see your point

I completely disagree with fallout 3 having more meaningless locations than New Vegas. I honestly do not know how you can make that argument, as in my experience there were far, far, far, faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more empty shacks and meaningless locations on the map in New Vegas than 3. Really, I only felt New Vegas hit the high notes in the Vaults, in which most were very well done (especially 11). Otherwise, nearly everything fell flat and missed the Fallout feel (that of a post-apocalyptic world) and just felt more like a 3rd world country stuck in the middle of a war. Fallout 3, on the other hand, constantly reminded you that the old world was no more, and really felt like a post-apocalyptic universe, and nearly every location on the map had a story to tell. Rather it be large locales like Oasis, Little Lamplight, Bigtown, The Lincoln Memorial, or the smaller ones like the Mama Dolce Factory, The Sniper's Shack, Minefield, etc., it was hard to find a locale in Fallout 3 that did not in some way relate to some form of story, rather it be a small incident or part of a larger arc.

You clearly don't understand the Fallout "feel" if you think Fallout 3 nailed it better than New Vegas, starting with the fact that the Fallout world was moving in the direction of New Vegas' setting rather than towards the pre-Fallout 1 levels of destruction found in Fallout 3 (which shouldn't be as decrepit as it was). I'm also pretty sure that third world countries don't have casinos and are probably closer in terms of condition to Fallout 3. Furthermore, Fallout 3 had a similar amount of empty radio towers and power stations as New Vegas had shacks and caves; that's the problem with larger games like this, and both were equally accountable for having their share of empty locations. But with the bigger locations and towns, New Vegas was miles ahead of Fallout 3 in terms of creativity and common sense (i.e. Little Lamplight is completely non-sensical). As for the other locations you listed, Oasis made no sense given the lore, the Sniper's Shack had a unique weapon and two radroaches and that was it (which is just as "empty" as similar locations in New Vegas), Minefield was pretty normal other than the mines, and the Lincoln Memorial was almost completely empty aside from it's relevance to a quest, but didn't matter much otherwise

We're just going to have to agree to disagree then. You're interpretation of the Fallout "feel" seems more based in the lore and such, whereas mine is more based in the thematic undertones of the series. And you will never convince me that New Vegas had less meaningful locales than Fallout 3: I've played both games so extensively I know the maps like the back of my hand, so that's not something you will be able to change my personal view on. To each their own, glad you enjoyed New Vegas so much, but for me it is no contest between the two as to which gives a more meaningful and memorable experience. I love both games, but Fallout 3 has to win every time for me.